A Few Odds and Ends, February 2016 Edition

If you are a frequent reader, you may have wondered what happened to the blog. I try to publish a post every two weeks or so. This past couple of months was the longest "dry spell" since I began the blog in 2010. Today I am finally back, and would like to wish everyone a belated Happy New Year!

So what gives? I guess you could say that I needed to disconnect in order to reconnect. The pace had been relatively intensive, particularly as I tried to balance a busy full-time job, family, and numerous activities and hobbies. I also had a bit of Sesquicentennial burn out -- not  one day passed in four years where I wasn't doing something related to the Civil War. I like to think that my recent time away (and model building with my son Jack) has reinvigorated me for the year ahead.

And now a few odds and ends as I kick off 2016:

*My blog has brought me into contact with a lot of people I may not otherwise have met and has enabled me to expand my Civil War universe outside of the blog. As noted previously, I have started to do volunteer research for the Fairfax Station Railroad Museum. I have also begun exploring ways to help the Manassas Battlefield Trust (MBT). I will keep readers posted on any upcoming activities. Meanwhile, Debra Kathman, the Executive Director of MBT, recently sent me some interview questions. (I posted a Q&A with Debra last year.) They should be up and running soon on the MBT website.

*Speaking of Manassas, I recently purchased a copy of John Hennessy's masterful book, The First Battle of Manassas: An End to Innocence, July 18-21, 1861. John has revised his first edition and re-released it through Stackpole. I bought my own autographed copy directly from him. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book -- my first of 2016 -- and can't recommend it enough. To use an oxymoron, it is a tactical page turner! Even if you think you know First Bull Run pretty well, you are sure to discover something new, and be entertained at the same time.

*On a related note, Harry Smeltzer over at Bull Runnings published an interview with John, who offered to lead a tour of the First Manassas battlefield for Harry's blog readers. The suggestion has now come to fruition. The tour will be held at Manassas National Battlefield Park on Saturday, April 23. More information is available over at Harry's blog, and on the dedicated Facebook page for the tour. Expected attendance is growing, and a car pool caravan will be the chief mode of transport. If you plan on going, be sure to read John's book.

*Last fall Savas Beatie sent me a copy of one of the latest titles in the Emerging Civil War (ECW) series, A Want of Vigilance: The Bristoe Station Campaign, October 9-19, 1863 by Bill Backus and Rob Orrison. This book appears only a couple years or so after the publisher's detailed atlas on the Bristoe Campaign. Together, they help to fill in some gaps in the literature between Gettysburg and the Overland Campaign. Like all ECW books, A Want of Vigilance is a slim volume packed with key facts, plenty of photos and maps, and a driving tour. The authors, both old hands at the Bristoe Station Battlefield, cover all the major aspects of the campaign, from James Station to Buckland Mills. Six appendixes, including an order of battle and a chronology of battlefield preservation, round out the book. A Want of Vigilance makes for a good, fast read on a little known but important part of the war.

*I maintain a list of potential topics for future posts. My ability to add to the list has far surpassed my ability to keep up. Some of the subjects don't even seem that appealing to me any more. (Perhaps I should take a vote on what readers prefer!) As I gear up for 2016, I am thinking broadly of where I want to take the blog. Not surprisingly, more on Northern Virginia's contraband camps is in the offering. I also plan to report my findings on soldier and civilian life around Fairfax Station. I've lived in Loudoun for well over a year now -- I think it may be time to write a little more on the Civil War in my backyard. I've already mentioned my interest in the Loudoun Valley Campaign of 1862, but haven't had a chance to dig deeper. And what about those Union Army campsites down the road, or the history of some Loudoun families during the war? If anything, I can help to spread the word about the best resources on Loudoun's antebellum and Civil War history. This year I also hope to continue features such as Civil War Views, travelogues, and Q&As. Forward march!

A Talk with Eugene Schmiel, Author of "Citizen-General: Jacob Dolson Cox and the Civil War Era"

A couple of years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Gene Schmiel during a Savas Beatie Author Enclave at South Mountain and Antietam. At the time, Gene was putting the finishing touches on his biography of Union Gen. Jacob Cox. The book, Citizen-General: Jacob Dolson Cox and the Civil War Era was published by Ohio University in 2014. Gene's biography received many favorable reviews and has been featured as a History Book Club Reading Selection. Gene was nice enough to take the time to answer some questions about his book and Cox. I think you'll find his responses interesting, to say the least. And if you'd like to meet Gene and hear him speak about "Jacob Cox and the West Point-'Political General' Divide in the Union Army," be sure to head to the Loudoun County Civil War Rountable next Tuesday, June 9, at 7:30 p.m.

Q. First off, tell readers a little about yourself.

A. I am a retired U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer who served overseas in Sweden, South Africa, Djibouti, Kenya, and Iceland. I was Charge’ d’Affaires at three embassies and Consul General in Mombasa, Kenya. I now work part-time at the State Department on international political-military and terrorism-related issues.

Before joining State, I was an Assistant Professor of History at St. Francis University (Pennsylvania). I earned my Ph.D. from The Ohio State University, where I met my wife, Bonnie Kathryn. We have two children, David and Jennifer, and five grandsons. My wife and I wrote a book in 1998 about our life in the Foreign Service entitled, Welcome Home: Who are You?  Tales of a Foreign Service Family. We live in Gainesville, Virginia

Q. Why did you choose Jacob Cox as the subject for a biography? 

A. My focus in grad school was 19th century U.S. history, and Jacob Cox’s life (1828-1900) was in many ways a microcosm of the most important developments during that era. His military career, his role in Ohio and national politics, his tenure as both a railroad and a university president, and his authorship of highly-respected histories of the Civil War all made him one of the most important figures from the era about whom no one had written a biography. He even became one of the world’s most renowned amateur microscope scientists and wrote thirty-two articles about that topic for scholarly journals. In sum, he was a “Renaissance Man in the Gilded Age.” My dissertation was the “first draft” of that biography, and my book Citizen General: Jacob Dolson Cox and the Civil War Era was the conclusion of that process.

Q. What sources helped you the most? 

A. The Cox papers at the Oberlin College archives were by far the most important. Cox was not only an avid correspondent, but also someone with a sense of history, who saved his letters and most of those he received from other prominent individuals. Thankfully, he also had good handwriting! Among other important sources were the Official Records, the papers of Cox’s contemporaries and friends such as James A. Garfield and Rutherford B. Hayes, and Cox’s writings, especially his histories and extensive number of reviews of Civil War books.

Q. How would you describe the thesis of your book?

A. In my preface I noted that in his book, The Civil War Dictionary, Mark Boatner wrote that it “might well be titled, ‘What ever happened to J.D. Cox?’” His thesis was that Cox, like many others in the war, had served well, but had been forgotten. So, in effect, my goal was to answer Boatner’s question, as follows: Jacob Cox was one of the best Northern “citizen generals” in the Civil War, an influential postwar political leader, and the ablest participant-historian of the war, one whose writings have been both recognized as authoritative and objective and quoted by serious Civil War historians ever since.

Q. How do you rate Cox among Civil War Union generals?

A. I think it would be fair to say that a consensus of Civil War historians would place Cox in the top five of the “political” generals, along with men such as “Black Jack” Logan, Joshua Chamberlain, and Alpheus Williams. [William T.] Sherman clearly agreed – he thought so much of Cox’s ability that not only offered him a chance to command the 23rd Corps on the March to the Sea, but he also offered Cox a brigadier generalship in the Regular Army at the end of the war. The fact that Sherman and Grant both suggested to President Andrew Johnson that he choose Cox as Secretary of War to resolve the dispute with Congress over the “Tenure of Office” Act is additional evidence of Cox’s abilities and reputation.

Q. What sets Cox apart from other political generals in the Civil War? 

A. One key difference was that Cox was not politically prominent before the war, having served just one term as a back bencher in the Ohio Senate. Most historians, when using the term “political generals,” point to men like Logan, Butler, and Banks, all of whom were prominent already in national or state politics, and who could “demand” senior positions and commands. By contrast, Cox worked his way up and was given increasingly important positions by the senior generals whom he impressed with his ability, e.g. Rosecrans, McClellan, Burnside, Sherman, and Schofield.

Secondly, Cox was not a self-promoter – often to his detriment.  In his letters to his wife he often expressed dismay that incompetents (both political and West Pointers) were getting good press and that others were more successful in lobbying Congress for promotions.

Third, he always sublimated his political views to military necessity.  For example, when he served under John Schofield, a Democrat, during the Atlanta, Franklin-Nashville, and North Carolina Campaigns, Cox wrote to his wife that Schofield’s views were irrelevant on the battlefield and that he would carry out his orders without question.

Fourth, whereas McClellan and Sherman, among others, looked down on volunteer officers, they seemed to make an exception for Cox, whose abilities they respected as they offered him substantive responsibilities. They knew that Cox was, as I put it in the book, the “quintessential subordinate” officer, and that they could rely on him totally.

Q. Tell us about Cox’s relationship with Gen. George McClellan. 

A. In the beginning the two were very close, but after the war, Cox adjudged both that McClellan had critical weaknesses as a commander and that he was two-faced when dealing with his subordinates and superiors.

McClellan began the war as commander of Ohio’s troops and Cox was the military chief of staff of Ohio Governor William Dennison. They clearly got along well, and McClellan was impressed by Cox’s study of military tactics and history, as well as his intellectual command of military matters. McClellan, despite his prejudice against “volunteers,” chose Cox to command troop training at Camp Dennison and gave him an autonomous command in the West Virginia Campaign.

During the Maryland Campaign, Cox’s “Kanawha Division” was the advance element of the Army of the Potomac in taking Frederick and helping win the Battle of South Mountain. At the Battle of Antietam, Cox was tactical commander of the Union left wing, and he came within minutes of sweeping Lee’s forces from the field. McClellan praised him for his efforts and supported his promotion to Major General, even as he regretted Cox’s orders that October to go back to West Virginia to push back a Confederate offensive.

Cox noted in his letters and writings that he always respected McClellan during the war and believed he was the general best qualified to command Union troops. However, when he began doing research for his book reviews and his books, he came to a very different set of conclusions. He was especially taken aback when reading McClellan’s Own Story, from which he discovered that McClellan was two-faced and inclined to blame others for his failings. While preparing his review of that book, Cox made multiple notes in the margins of his copy of the text. Among his outraged comments were, “I don’t believe a word of it”; “Quintessence of nonsense!”; “What Stuff;” and “Always a lion in the way!” In his review, his wrote that that the book was “full of blinding self-esteem,” in which “everyone is a rogue and incapable except McClellan.”

In many ways Cox’s review and his articles about McClellan in West Virginia and the Battle of Antietam in the Battle and Leaders of the Civil War, and his section on the latter battle in his Military Reminiscences set the historiographical foundation for the judgment about McClellan’s shortcomings as a commander. As he wrote in the Antietam article, noting acerbically McClellan’s claim in his memoirs that because he led the Maryland Campaign without written orders, the administration could have charged him with usurpation of command, “The suggestion of McClellan twenty years afterward that it had all been a pitfall prepared for him, would be revolting if…the absurdity of it did not prove that its origin was in a morbid imagination.” Finally, underscoring that throughout his campaigns McClellan’s army greatly outnumbered the enemy and his equipment and supplies were far better, Cox commented that “McClellan’s persistent outcry that he was sacrificed by his government destroys even that character for dignity and that reputation for military intelligence which we fondly attributed to him.”

Q. Why do you think Cox hasn’t attracted the attention of other Union generals like Winfield Scott Hancock? 

A. Not being a West Pointer, he had no major command positions, and partly as a result he suffered from what he called the problem of being a second in command and being forgotten in the writing of history. In fact, that was a key impetus to his career as an historian.

Also, Cox was what might be called “colorless.” That is, he was a staid, stoic, and unemotional intellectual who lacked the common touch.  He had been a divinity student at Oberlin, and for some time a career as a minister and professor of theology seemed likely in his future. While his men respected him, they never “loved” him in the way McClellan’s did. These characteristics made him an effective commander since he never lost control of himself and was always a voice of calm reason, even during the most tempestuous moments of the conflict – except once (see the next item).

Finally, as noted above, he was not a self-promoter, so while others sought and got the limelight, the reticent Cox always said he would rely on history to recognize his contributions.

Q. In your view, what was Cox’s most important military accomplishment during the Civil War?

A. If I had to pick one, it would be his command of the defensive line at the Battle of Franklin, November 30, 1864. His commander, John Schofield, made Cox acting commander of the 23rd Corps and most of the 4th Corps and ordered him to set up a defensive line to protect the withdrawal of troops and the wagon train on its way to Nashville. Schofield did not even visit Cox during the day, so confident was he that Cox would, as always, perform his responsibilities effectively.

When John Bell Hood decided to attack frontally at Franklin, most generals on both sides were surprised. Cox too thought Hood would try to outflank the Union forces, but having seen Hood attack frequently on the Atlanta Campaign, he decided to set up a strong bulwark against a frontal attack. The only problem was that he had to leave a gap in the line for the wagon train and withdrawing troops.  He set up a second line behind the first in case Hood did in fact attack. When that happened and fleeing Union troops, with rebels just behind them, poured through the opening, Cox faced a major challenge. At that moment, everything he had fought for and all of the contributions he had made to the Union war effort were at risk.

In the book I wrote that it was at that moment that, for one of the few times in his life, Cox dropped his stoic veneer and became an emotional “warrior” – though even then in a controlled manner. He rode to the front, waving his sword and screaming at his men to meet the challenge. But he still was calm enough to, at one point, calm his nervous horse, which was bucking wildly because of the noise. The Union forces met the challenge, and Cox’s leadership was the critical element of their success.   He was the “unsung hero” of the Battle of Franklin.

Q. What were Cox’s most enduring contributions outside of the war? 

A. Cox was the ablest participant-historian of the Civil War, and his books and articles about the war are his enduring legacy. His two-volume Military Reminiscences, in particular, is frequently cited by modern Civil War historians not only because it is a primary source, but also because Cox has been shown to be a superb historian. His books on the Atlanta Campaign, on the Battle of Franklin, and on Sherman’s March to the Sea, the Franklin-Nashville Campaign, and the North Carolina Campaign all have stood the test of time. His five articles in the Battles and Leaders of the Civil War volumes, as well as his 161 reviews of books for the Nation magazine from 1874-1900, are further evidence of the quality of his research and historical writing.

Q. Why didn’t Cox ultimately succeed in politics like some other well-known Ohioans?

A. When the war ended, most political observers would have said that Cox was someone whose rise to national political prominence was inevitable. He had a sterling war record, was one of the founders of the Ohio Republican Party, and had close friends in the national political and military leadership. Also, his home base of Ohio was important because that state was the home of five of the next six presidents, all of whom had war records (Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, and McKinley). When Cox was elected Governor of Ohio in 1865, he could have used that position as a springboard to be as Grant’s ultimate successor. (In fact Grant’s successor was Cox’s successor as governor, Rutherford B. Hayes).

Instead Cox’s established reputation as an uncompromising intellectual intent on speaking his own mind at all times proved to be his political downfall. He also lacked charisma and tended to give political speeches which were academic-oriented.  His first political problems came when he suggested in the Ohio campaign (in his famous “Oberlin Letter”) that a possible solution to the racial problems of the postwar South was the creation of a special area where blacks would be given special privileges and protected from white reaction. The practical politicians all told him to say nothing about the issue, but he insisted that he wanted to contribute to the national debate. The plan was considered too radical – even if the blacks would not be forced to go there – and political leaders now knew that Cox had a strong independent streak.

Then, as the division between Andrew Johnson and the Radical Republicans widened, Cox supported Johnson for some months, and then tried to play a peacemaking role between the two. He was soon seen as insufficiently “loyal” by both sides, and decided not to run for re-election. Finally, in 1870 Cox resigned from Grant’s Cabinet on another matter of principle, civil service reform, and became a leader of the Liberal Republican party. Its loss meant that whereas in 1865 his political future seemed wide open, by 1873, he was in permanent national political exile. He did serve one term in the House of Representatives, where he hoped to help implement the policies of his wartime subordinate, Rutherford B. Hayes, but again his stubborn commitment to principle and refusal to become a “practical politician” convinced him to leave politics.

In an introspective letter written to a friend in 1885, Cox said that he well knew that he had a golden political future in 1865, but that:

My experience of public life had probably been about as great as may come unsought to one who has stubbornness of opinion.  Enough, at best, to warrant me in thinking that I too could have cut a more prominent figure had I thought the game worth the candle…and so without disappointment or envy, regret or longing, I have been able to go my way thinking my own thoughts, advocating my own opinions, calling no mob master.

Q. How did Cox’s early Whig views influence his stance on issues like racial equality?

A. Cox’s first political affiliation was with the Whigs, which he joined just as it was undergoing its death throes in the early 1850s.  He joined the Whigs rather than the Free-Soilers, in great part because the former’s membership was representative of Anglo-Saxon elites with moderate views on slavery and its expansion. Despite Cox’s education at Oberlin College, he was not a radical on racial issues, though he was, of course, intensely anti-slavery.

Like other Whigs who joined the Republicans, he believed that blacks should be free, but that they would inevitably be second-class citizens. Unlike many Whigs, he didn’t support overseas colonization, but during the war he suggested in a letter that black soldiers who performed well might be given land in Texas which would be off-limits to whites. That idea was the germ of his proposal in the “Oberlin Letter.” Cox, who as a former divinity student and potential professor always wanted to stimulate intellectual thought, saw this as an attempt to stimulate a dialogue about possible solutions. His political friends, including Garfield, warned him not to do it, but his instinct was always to be “tutelary.” It was exactly the wrong approach at that point in his political career – he paid the price, but as noted above, he was always his own man.

Q. Are there any other Civil War books on the horizon?

A. Not for a while, if at all. I do have an article coming out in October in an Ohio history magazine, Timelines, about Cox’s near-miss at Antietam, when his forces, on the verge of taking Sharpsburg and breaking the Confederate right wing, were hit in the flank by A.P. Hill’s men and forced to halt their advance.

I also might do some articles about related topics from Cox’s life. One would be about his close friendship with Jack Casement, who was his subordinate during the war. Casement, who was the main builder of the Union Pacific Railroad, was Cox’s complete opposite in personality: brusque, abrasive, coarse, etc., but also, like Cox, a quintessential subordinate.   It was a friendship of complete opposites.
---------------------------
Thanks so much to Gene for taking the time to answer my questions. Cox is truly a fascinating subject for a biography, all the more so given his relative obscurity among Civil War generals!

A "New" Bookstore for History Enthusiasts

Last fall the Old Book Company of McLean closed its doors. As an avid bibliophile, I was saddened to see this top-notch, independent used book store go out of business. I spent many Saturday afternoons browsing through the Civil War collection there. And owner Phil Hanson even helped me to assess the edition and value of a soldier's memoir I had purchased on-line. Lucky for us, Phil has taken his talents and gone to work with the Claude Moore Colonial Farm's Book Shop in McLean, Virginia.

A few weekends ago I dropped by the store, which is hidden at the end of Colonial Farm Road beyond the entrance to the historic site. (I was tempted to keep the location a secret all to myself, but I promised that I would spread the word!) Phil helped to renovate and re-organize the shop, and he even moved some of his inventory there. Endless shelves of U.S. history books line the walls. Offerings include numerous antebellum, Civil War, and 19th century Indian War volumes. The day I visited, I bought a 1947 first edition of Roy Meredith's The Face of Robert E. Lee. Book lovers will also find written works on any other topic imaginable.

Behind the front desk sit collectible and antique editions.

Looking at the Civil War section. I have a feeling I will be spending some time here.

The shop promises to become a bit of a destination if all goes well. Guests will find plenty of room to walk around and browse, or just sit and peruse a book from the shelves. Coffee is available for those who prefer to sip on a cup of Joe while looking. Phil also tells me that special events are planned for the future, and I'll be sure to make the details available on the blog's Facebook page. In a day when book stores are disappearing as fast as people are converting to e-readers, it is comforting to find such a special place for people who still appreciate their books the old fashioned way. The next time you are in the McLean area, I'd urge you to pay the shop a visit. You won't be disappointed.

Details 

Hours: Wednesday through Saturday, 12 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Address: 6310 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA (really at the end of Colonial Farm Road near CIA HQ)

The store accepts books in exchange for tax deductions. No store credits.

A Look at Books: February 2014

Today I'd like to talk about a few books that publishers have sent my way. They are all worth a spot on your Civil War bookshelf, even if you are running out of room like I am! And each one is the type of book you can spend hours perusing, which is a perfect indoor pursuit for all of these cold winter days.

Smithsonian Civil War: Inside the National Collection, Neil Kagan & Stephen G. Hyslop (eds.) (Smithsonian 2013): Take one look at Smithsonian Civil War and you will quickly see that the art of bookmaking is alive and well. This handsome publication contains 150 entries on Civil War-era topics ranging from Bleeding Kansas to Abraham Lincoln's assassination. (And that number is not coincidental -- Smithsonian Civil War is intended as a publication in honor of the Sesquicentennial.) Curators have thoughtfully selected over 500 objects from the Smithsonian's collections and built a concise yet informative narrative around them. Some items, such as Alexander Gardner's "A Harvest of Death," will appear very familiar to readers. Others, like Confederate postage stamps or Thaddeus Lowe's binoculars, are somewhat obscure, but just as captivating in their own right. I particularly enjoyed the full-color spreads of original uniforms, weapons, and accouterments, including militia headgear, Confederate belt buckles, side arms, and Zouave jackets. Owning this beautiful coffee table book is like having a private Civil War museum at your fingertips. Thanks to the good people at Smithsonian, we now have another worthwhile souvenir of the Sesquicentennial years.

The Civil War in 50 Objects, by Harold Holtzer & the New-York Historical Society (Viking 2013): Although not as heavily illustrated as the Smithsonian book, The Civil War in 50 Objects is another fascinating look at the war as told through artifacts. This time we are treated to a selection of paintings, photographs, uniforms, flags, letters, diaries, broadsides, and other seldom-seen items from the New-York Historical Society's impressive Civil War collection, which dates to the immediate post-war period. Each chapter explores a select object and related theme. A Bible from the Colored Orphan Asylum, burned during the New York City Draft Riots, brings the horror and racism of that tragic event to life. A Confederate soldier's watercolor drawing from Point Lookout takes readers behind the prison gates. These rare artifacts, and forty-eight others, paint an unforgettable and sometimes intimate portrait of a country at war. Not quite a coffee table book, The Civil War in 50 Objects is a unique visual history lesson with broad appeal to beginners and experts alike. I only wish they could have chosen 100 more objects to join those 50 in honor of the Sesquicentennial!

The Maps of the Bristoe Station and Mine Run Campaigns: An Atlas of the Battles and Movements in the Eastern Theater after Gettysburg, Including Rappahannock Station, Kelly's Ford, and Morton's Ford, July 1863-February 1864, by Bradley M. Gottfried (Savas Beatie 2013): As students of military history know, maps are critical to a full understanding and appreciation of events. Lucky for us, Savas Beatie has published yet another excellent battle and campaign atlas. I already have Gottfried's atlases for First Bull Run, Antietam, and Gettysburg. (Savas Beatie also published a Chickamauga atlas by David Powell.) The decision to focus on Bristoe Station and Mine Run may seem like an odd choice at first glance. But writers have neglected events in the Eastern Theater between Gettysburg and the Overland Campaign for far too long, making this atlas a welcome and much-needed addition to the Civil War literature. Readers of the other atlases will find the format familiar. Gottfried has assembled thirteen map sets, translating into 87 full-page color maps in all. Thirteen maps alone cover the November 27, 1863 fighting at Payne's Farm during the Mine Run Campaign. The page opposite each map describes the corresponding action in detail, along with useful endnotes. I had never spent that much time studying the long interlude before U.S. Grant's appearance in the East. The Maps of the Bristoe Station and Mine Run Campaigns is sure to change all of that.

Civil War Fairfax 1863 Exhibition at the Fairfax Museum and Visitor Center

A few weeks ago I finally had the opportunity to see the Civil War Fairfax 1863 exhibition at the Fairfax Museum and Visitor Center. The museum has assembled an impressive array of artifacts to explore the story of the war's third year in Fairfax Court House and the surrounding area. The exhibit covers themes such as emancipation, life in the Union Army camps, partisan warfare, and civilians. Curator Susan Gray, who was nice enough to give me a personal tour of the exhibition, provided some interesting insights into the numerous objects on display.

Any exhibition on 1863 in Fairfax would be incomplete without a section devoted to John Mosby and his Rangers, who rode into the headlines with the daring raid on Fairfax Court House in March of that year. The museum has chosen to showcase some real treasures. One wall is covered with items that were found in Mosby's saddlebags when Union soldiers stole his horse, including papers signed by Turner Ashby and J.E.B. Stuart. Memorabilia from post-war reunions of Mosby's Rangers is also on display.

Entrance to the exhibition, with Mosby front and center

The museum has not forgotten about other partisan activity. An interpretive panel discusses the Chinquapin Rangers, an irregular cavalry company raised in Fairfax and Prince William Counties. A Burnside carbine and Colt Army revolver belonging to a member of the Loudoun Rangers are also on display. As the label accompanying the weapons reminds us, "Yes, There Were Union Partisan Rangers!"

A section dealing with emancipation discusses the fate of freed slaves in Northern Virginia, including the contraband camps in Fairfax. (I provided the museum with research on the camps, which they kindly attributed to me as part of the exhibit.) The display features a rare photograph of a slave family at the Volusia farm in eastern Fairfax County near Alexandria. The photograph was likely taken in 1862 by Lt. James E. Larkin, whose regiment, the 5th New Hampshire, had established a camp at Volusia.

Portion of the exhibition dealing with the impact of emancipation. The enlarged photograph of a slave family at Volusia is visible at the center of the display.

By 1863, Fairfax played home to many Union regiments serving in the outer defenses of Washington, and the museum dedicates considerable space to examining the life of the common soldiers encamped in the area. An outside individual loaned the museum many items from his impressive personal collection, including cartes de visite from the 17th New York Light Artillery, an original Union artillery uniform, and a carved bone grip pocket knife belonging to a member of the 7th Michigan Cavalry. As an added bonus, the section on Union Army life features an interesting display of Civil War-era dog tags (called "medals" at the time). Soldiers purchased the brass or pewter discs from sutlers and had their names stamped on one side. The reverse side usually displayed a patriotic-themed design.

A colorful print of the military record of Company I, 16th Vermont Infantry (1862). The regiment was encamped in Fairfax Courthouse and southern Fairfax County from December 1862 until June 1863, when it marched north with the rest of the Second Vermont Brigade to repel the Confederate invasion of Pennsylvania. The 16th Vermont participated in the defense of the Union center during Pickett's Charge.

The exhibition also looks at the civilian side of the war in Fairfax. Most of the interpretation focuses on locals who were rounded up by the Union authorities on suspicion of disloyalty and sent to Old Capitol Prison. For the romantics out there, another wall is dedicated to the relationship between Antonia Ford, a Confederate spy, and Union Maj. Joseph C. Willard, a co-owner of Washington's famed Willard Hotel. Among the artifacts are Ford's love letters to Willard, as well as the couple's DC marriage certificate.

The ledger book for Thomas Harrison's store, which was located to the west of Fairfax Court House. Notes in the ledger refer to the arrest of Harrison and several of his neighbors by the Union Army following Mosby's Fairfax Raid in March 1863.

If you live in the area, or are just visiting during the holidays, be sure to check out Civil War Fairfax 1863. I spent a long time studying the artifacts and reading the interpretive panels. Although covering the usual suspects (i.e., Mosby), the exhibition doesn't neglect other important topics like contrabands and civilian-military relations. Kudos to Susan Gray and the museum staff for organizing such an informative and interesting exhibition. I left learning a thing or two, and I am sure you will too.

About Visiting

Civil War Fairfax 1863 runs now through January 12, 2014. For more information about visiting, see the Fairfax Museum and Visitor Center homepage. While at the museum, be sure to check out the permanent collection, which features other Civil War-related items.

The Civil War and American Art at the Smithsonian

I recently had a chance to see "The Civil War and American Art" at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.  My only regret is that I didn't spread the word sooner about this captivating exhibition that closes at the Smithsonian on April 28.  If you get to Washington between now and then, make sure to stop by the museum.  Once the exhibition leaves the nation's capital, it will travel to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City and remain there from May 27 to September 2, 2013.

The exhibition traces the impact of the Civil War era on art in the United States.  The Smithsonian has assembled an impressive array of 75 paintings and photographs to tell the story.  Many of these works will be familiar to Civil War enthusiasts, but there is something more intimate and powerful about studying an original painting or photograph in person, no matter how many times you've seen that same image in print.

By the mid-nineteenth century, artists in the United States had long since discarded the European style of grandiose history painting, and landscapes dominated the American art scene.  Exhibition curator Eleanor Harvey carefully selected paintings to demonstrate the dramatic influence that the conflict had on artistic expression.  The visitor quickly realizes that a landscape painting often represents something more than a depiction of the natural world on canvas.  Symbolism abounds, and the museum helps us make sense of it all with the ample use of interpretive labels.

As sectional division threatened the Union, paintings like Martin Johnson Heade's Approaching Thunder Storm (1859) reflected the nation's anxiety and foreshadowed the fratricidal conflict to come.  Frederic Edwin Church, a preeminent artist of the era, painted the eruption of an Ecuadorean volcano in Cotopaxi during the war's second year.  His imagery evokes Frederick Douglass' 1861 description of slavery as a "moral volcano."  The thick smoke and red hues recall the violence and chaos of the battlefield, while the partially blue sky offers some distant hope of the Union's redemption through bloodshed. 

Martin Johnson Heade, Approaching Thunder Storm (1859) (courtesy of Metropolitan Museum of Art).

Frederic Church, Cotopaxi (1862) (courtesy of About.com United States Travel).

As the struggle came to an end, artists contemplated the country's future in the aftermath of civil war.  Albert Bierstadt's Looking Down Yosemite Valley, California (1865) is verdant and alive with hope for a reunited nation.  The sun, hidden behind the rocks, beckons the country forward to a better, more serene place.  Likewise, the pilgrims in Church's Rainy Season in the Tropics (1866) move towards a distant, shining city under a magnificent double rainbow.  The entire painting elicits feelings of peace and healing.

Albert Bierstadt, Looking Down Yosemite Valley, California (1865) (courtesy of About.com United States Travel).  This stunning masterpiece was one of my favorites in the exhibition.

Frederic Church, Rainy Season in the Tropics (1866) (courtesy of Urban Paddle).

The war also stimulated art in other, more predictable ways as artists focused their attention on military subjects.  But unlike history painting, with its glorified depictions of battles and leaders, the artists of the Civil War era tended to take a lower-key and more realistic approach.  Paintings by Winslow Homer, such as Home, Sweet Home (c. 1863), portray soldiers in camp, killing the hours of boredom and thinking of loved ones far away.  Sanford Robinson Gifford painted soldiers overshadowed by their natural surroundings, as in Bivouac of the Seventh Regiment, Arlington Heights, Virginia (1861).  Southern artist Conrad Wise Chapman is also here, with his intimate paintings of Confederate-occupied Ft. Sumter.  (As a special treat, the museum is exhibiting his painting of the Confederate submarine, Hunley.)

Winslow Homer, Home, Sweet Home (about 1863) (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).  The only weak spot in the exhibition is the absence of drawings by sketch artists for the various newsweeklies.  The presence of so many of Homer's works helps to compensate for that shortcoming.  Homer was a sketch artist, and many of his paintings were based on his drawings from the field.

Sanford Robinson Gifford, Bivouac of the Seventh Regiment, Arlington Heights, Virginia (1861) (courtesy of Smithsonian American Art Museum).  I particularly liked this depiction of the 7th New York State Militia's camp on the outskirts of Washington.  The exhibition also features Gifford's paintings of the 7th New York in Washington, Baltimore, and Frederick.

Conrad Wise Chapman, The Flag of Sumter, October 20 1863 (1863-64) (courtesy of Artinfo).  Chapman painted this scene while serving with the Confederate Army in Charleston. 

The difficult issues of slavery and race relations also emerge as a major theme in Civil War-era painting. The curator has selected a multitude of thought-provoking canvases that cause us to reflect on the meaning of slavery and emancipation.  Two paintings in particular demonstrate the social revolution that the Civil War brought to the nation.  Eastman Johnson's The Old Mount Vernon (1857) shows the first President's estate as we almost never see it.  The slave quarters are there front and center, right behind Washington's famous home.  A lone African-American man sits in the doorway.  Johnson's painting, whether intentionally or not, reminds us that the promises of our Founding Fathers had yet to reach millions of enslaved Americans. In A Visit from the Old Mistress (1876), painted over a decade after Appomattox, Homer depicts the radically altered relations between former slaves and slave owners throughout the South.  The elderly white woman keeps her distance from three black women who belonged to her family before emancipation.  Tension fills the air.  The entire scene feels bitter and cold, seething with resentment.  Homer's canvass shows us a post-war America that is a world away from Church's rainbows and Bierstadt's Western landscape.  

Eastman Johnson, Old Mount Vernon (1857) (courtesy of Critical Explorers).

Winslow Homer, A Visit from the Old Mistress (1876) (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).

The exhibition gives a prominent spot to Civil War photography.  This relatively new art form captured the carnage and destruction of war in a way that paintings or drawings never could have done.  The curator has selected some of the best-known works by George Barnard, Alexander Gardner, Timothy H. O'Sullivan, and other famous photographers.  The bloated corpses at Antietam and Gettysburg, the Confederate dead scattered along the stone wall at Marye's Heights, the skeletal remains at Cold Harbor, the battlefields of the Atlanta Campaign, and the burned ruins of Columbia are all there.  The photographs remind us of the utter destruction that the war brought to the country.  We are just as shocked by these photographs today as were Americans of the Civil War generation.

Alexander Gardner, Confederate Dead, Antietam (Dunker Church in background) (Sept. 19, 1862)  (courtesy of Civil War Academy). 

George N. Barnard, Columbia, from the Capitol (1865) (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).

"The Civil War and American Art" deserves high praise.  The exhibition is a truly remarkable collection of paintings and photography.  No matter how many times you may have seen some of these images, you are certain to learn something new while walking through the galleries and studying the artwork.  We are left to ponder how the Civil War affected and transformed American art just as it did other aspects of American life and culture.

More Information & Sources

For more information about "The Civil War and American Art," including a slide show, picture album, webcasts, blog posts, and a calendar of events, visit the exhibition's website. 

Please note that because photography was not allowed in the exhibition galleries (and rightfully so), I have used images of the paintings and photographs reproduced elsewhere on the web.

The following sources were useful in compiling this post:

Howland Cotter, "American Eden, After the Fall," New York Times, Jan. 10, 2013; Eleanor Jones Harvey, "America's Moral Volcano," Disunion blog, Feb. 5, 2013; Philip Kennicott, "'The Civil War and American Art' Puts the Battle in the Background," Washington Post, Nov. 21, 2012; Smithsonian American Art Museum, "The Civil War and American Art": Teacher's Guide (2012).

A Review of Lincoln (Finally!)

A few weeks ago, I finally had the chance to see Steven Spielberg's acclaimed film about our sixteenth President. Bloggers and academics, along with film critics, have already reviewed and analyzed Lincoln many times over, but like any good blogger, I thought I would offer my two cents. (See below for links to some of the reviews and commentary.) Before I saw the movie, a friend had asked me whether I would post a review on my blog. I wasn't sure. After leaving the theatre, however, I couldn't help but feel compelled to write down a few observations and impressions.

I once read that you are either a Civil War buff, or a Lincoln buff, but not both. I've never been a big Lincoln aficionado. That being said, I admire and respect Lincoln and count him among one of my favorite Presidents. I eagerly anticipated this film and was not disappointed. The movie offers what is probably the most realistic portrayal ever done of President Lincoln.  Daniel Day-Lewis, who just won a Golden Globe for his remarkable performance, shows the man as I imagined him to be from all the period descriptions and biographical accounts that I have read. His lankiness, high pitched voice, keen intellect, good-natured sense of humor, and political savvy were all there. We may never come this close to meeting a President who lived so long ago. The movie also delivers on other characters, like the radical and sharp-tongued Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) and the cranky Edwin Stanton (Bruce McGill).

But Lincoln also does something more; Spielberg's movie magic proves that time travel is possible. The film transported me back to early 1865. I felt surrounded by the sights and sounds of the time. The scene of Lincoln traveling through the streets of Washington depicted the nation's capital as I've always pictured the city to be during the Civil War -- more rough and tumble, dirty, and unsophisticated than anything, and a far cry from today's mix of federal grandeur and urban hipness. The lighting of interiors, whether at the Executive Mansion, on the House floor, or in private homes or taverns, reminded me that life was a lot darker in the days before electricity. Spielberg also captured the complexity of the times. You feel the weight of the momentous issues facing Lincoln, Congress, and by extension, our country, as you watch the movie. Emerging from the multiplex into a suburban mall filled with teenyboppers sending text messages and the smells of fast food, I felt strangely disoriented, like I didn't belong. The film had altered my sense of time and place for two and a half hours. If I watch the movie again and again, it is in part because I want to go back and visit.

Some historians have taken Lincoln to task for failing to depict the entire story of emancipation. Kate Masur, for instance, wrote in the New York Times that "Mr. Spielberg’s 'Lincoln' helps perpetuate the notion that African Americans have offered little of substance to their own liberation." She also worried that the film "reinforces, even if inadvertently, the outdated assumption that white men are the primary movers of history and the main sources of social progress." Masur and other critics miss the point. Lincoln is not a movie or documentary about the entire history of emancipation in America, nor was it intended to be. Rather, it focuses on just one facet of that story--the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment by the U.S. House of Representatives and the role that Lincoln played in that momentous decision. 

Critics like Masur fail to understand the movie for another reason too. Recall that before the Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution protected slavery. Lincoln, a lawyer by profession, recognized the shaky legal foundations of the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure. The document also had limited reach. The President knew that in a nation of laws built upon the Constitution, an amendment to our most sacred of secular texts was required to seal the fate of slavery once and for all. Abolitionists, contraband seeking refuge behind Union lines, emancipationist generals, prior congressional acts, and the liberating advance of the Federal armies all contributed significantly to the demise of slavery. But without a change to our most fundamental of laws, the future of emancipation was not yet secure. The Thirteenth Amendment, passed by a Congress that was anything but diverse, placed the legal nails in the coffin of slavery, and set in motion a constitutional revolution to guarantee equal rights under the law. The action was a necessary step in destroying the peculiar institution, and Lincoln makes this abundantly clear. (See Andy Hall's post on a masterful scene where Lincoln explains the legal necessity of the Thirteenth Amendment.)

Lincoln is a captivating and powerful film. Spielberg brings our sixteenth President to life on the big screen and tells a key part of the story on emancipation. Lincoln enables the audience to visit the past like no other film I have seen. We feel as though we are there as events are unfolding. I am sure that the film has inspired more than a few people to study the Civil War and Lincoln more closely. Lincoln will surely become a defining part of our sesquicentennial remembrance.  If you haven't yet seen the movie, you can't miss it.  And if you have already gone, I wouldn't be surprised to see you sitting there again, next to me.

Other Reviews and Commentary

Andy Hall
Keith Harris
Bernard Kempinski
Kevin Levin (Atlantic article synthesizing some posts from Kevin's blog)
Michael Lynch (here, here, here,and here)
John Rudy
Donald Shaffer
Harry Smeltzer

A Few Book Reviews

Publishing companies often contact Civil War bloggers to review their latest and greatest works on the nation's bloodiest conflict.  I enjoy seeing what's new in the world of Civil War publishing and welcome the opportunity to get the most recent releases.  And who am I to turn down a free book?  Of course, the books come with strings attached since I am supposed to write a review or at least spread the word.  Given how busy I am outside of my Civil War pursuits, I barely have enough time to read the books that I buy, let alone receive on a complimentary basis.  That being said, when I get a noteworthy book from a publisher, I like to follow through and write a review.  In today's post, I take a long overdue look at a couple of books that publishers have sent my way.

The Library of Congress Illustrated Timeline of the Civil War by Margaret E. Wagner, Little, Brown and Company (2011): I'll admit it. I am a sucker for so-called coffee table books. As an avid bibliophile, I like to acquire, admire, and display attractive books. My collection naturally focuses on the Civil War. From the moment I received the The Library of Congress Illustrated Timeline of the Civil War, I was hooked. The richly illustrated book, which marches through the war on an almost daily basis, draws from the extensive archives at the Library of Congress. More than a mere recitation of the war's chronology, the book offers a visual feast on each and every page. The author has chosen a striking array of photographs, engravings, maps, drawings, and other illustrations. Readers will find the usual suspects, but the book also contains a myriad of rare and previously unpublished images. The text, although necessarily concise, also benefits from a thoughtful use of quotations from primary source documents. 

E.B. Long's classic work, The Civil War Day by Day, presents a more comprehensive, in-depth chronology of the war than the Library of Congress book.  Wagner sometimes overlooks events, including aspects of the war in Northern Virginia during the second half of 1861 and the start of 1862.  Her book also skips entire days.  But the Illustrated Timeline of the Civil War more than compensates for these shortcomings with the quality of the writing and illustrations.  Long's massive book, although more detailed and better suited to research, is less captivating by comparison.  The Illustrated Timeline of the Civil War is the kind of book to browse through casually and enjoy.  Think of it as a printed companion to the Sesquicentennial, particularly for those with less knowledge on the history of the war.  All told, The Library of Congress Illustrated Timeline of the Civil War is a valuable, and handsome, addition to the world of Civil War reference books.  And it doesn't look bad on a coffee table either.

The Iron Way: Railroads, the Civil War, and the Making of Modern America by William G. Thomas, Yale University Press (2011):  This year I promised myself that I would read more about the economic and social history of the Civil War.  Being a bit of a train buff, I also wanted to dig a little deeper into the subject of railroads and the war.  The Iron Way was a perfect place to start.  William G. Thomas, a professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, offers a sweeping and ground-breaking examination of railroads before, during, and after the Civil War.  He combines strong scholarship with a thoroughly readable style.  The book, incidentally, is paired with an excellent digital history project, Railroads and the Making of Modern America.

Thomas shows just how critical railroads were to regional identities in the antebellum period and dispels old myths about the South as an economic backwater. In fact, the region was building and expanding railroad networks at a rapid pace during the 1850s. Rail penetration continued to grow and in many instances approached the level in the Northern states. Thomas explains just how intimately connected slavery was to this spectacular development. Companies bought and rented slaves to help construct and maintain railroads. Ironically, the technological progress brought by the railroads also ensured the very survival and perpetuation of the peculiar institution. So much for the argument that modernization would lead to the demise of slavery. Meanwhile, the North's own views about free labor and the advance of American civilization were tied up with the expansion of the railroads to the West.

As the war descended on the country, railroads naturally played a pivotal role.  They transported troops and moved supplies.  But the railroads also served as avenues of destruction and violence.  Thomas explores the growth of irregular warfare along the rail corridors throughout the South as men like John Mosby and John Morgan targeted Union supply lines and the soldiers protecting them.  This fighting became increasingly brutal and contributed to the ruin of the very rail infrastructure that the South had built before the war.  Thomas's interpretation is a valuable addition to the current body of scholarship on guerrilla warfare as popularized in Donald Sutherland's A Savage Conflict.

Thomas also focuses on the evolution in strategic thinking about the railroads.  Both sides had to figure out how to assimilate the new technology and create what Thomas calls a "railroad generalship."  George B. McClellan, however unfairly, is singled out for his failure to grasp the importance of railroads during his 1862 Peninsula Campaign.  By contrast, Stonewall Jackson ranks among the military leaders who clearly understood the role that railroads could play in winning the war. 

Thomas reserves his highest praise for William T. Sherman, who mastered the art of railroad generalship.  The greater part of an entire chapter examines how Sherman incorporated the railroad into his campaign to take Atlanta and beyond.  As Thomas writes, "[t]he maneuvers were carefully planned reconfigurations of the southern landscape, aimed at crippling railroad networks and severing southern communities from one another."  (p. 157.)  The March to the Sea, moreover, "was another, even more elaborate maneuver to control the Confederacy's network of railroads."  (p. 158.)  The Union's successful application of railroad generalship resulted in the destruction of track, bridges, and other infrastructure throughout the South.  Ironically enough -- in a book filled with irony -- the Union military in Georgia and elsewhere helped to put the railroads back together again during and after the war.

Thomas shows convincingly that the railroads also played a key part in the African-American struggle for emancipation and civil rights.  Before the war even started, fugitive slaves like Frederick Douglas were riding the rails northward to freedom.  During the war, contrabands flocked to the Union lines around railroad centers.  Here the escaped slaves could find work on the rails or enlist in the Union Army.  In the post-war South, racists sought to undermine black advances and imposed segregation on the railroads.  Thomas tells the story of a brave African-American wash woman, Catherine Brown, who successfully challenged such segregation in court, but her story was the exception and not the rule.
 
The Iron Way amazingly covers a lot of ground in only 274 pages of text and endnotes. If you are looking for a purely military study on railroad strategy and tactics in the Civil War, or a history of the U.S. Military Railroads, Thomas's book is not the one for you.  However, for those readers seeking a comprehensive account of the social, economic, and military importance of railroads in the Civil War era, Thomas has put together a definitive work that will set a standard for years to come.

Mr. Lincoln's Washington: New Resources

Last year I had the pleasure of meeting John O'Brien after I wrote a post for my employer's blog on the historic Winder Building in downtown DC.  O'Brien, a local expert on President Abraham Lincoln, was researching sites in Washington related to Lincoln's presidency and the Civil War.  He contacted me after reading the post.  O'Brien and I chatted about my office building, which housed several key offices visited by Lincoln during the war, and I arranged a tour for him with the chief preservationist of the Executive Office of the President.  I was extremely pleased when O'Brien recently sent me the fruits of his extensive and meticulous research  -- a newly-published fold-out map entitled, Lincoln in Washington: 1861-1865.

(courtesy of Lincoln in Washington)

The map provides incredible insights into Washington at the time of the Civil War.  One side depicts wartime Lafayette Square, near the White House, and discusses twenty-three sites connected with Lincoln that were located on or near the square, including the Wilkes-Madison House, where Gen. George B. McClellan worked and resided in the late summer and fall of 1861.  O'Brien has also written special inserts on "Lincoln in Public," the headquarters building for the Defenses of Washington, and Secretary of State William Seward's house.  The  reverse side of Lincoln in Washington contains a period map of Washington marking forty-nine other sites associated with the 16th President.  O'Brien offers descriptions for each of these places of interest.  Some of the sites are well-known, like Ford's Theatre and Willard's Hotel.  Many others, such as Secretary of War Simon Cameron's house, are more obscure, and reflect O'Brien's thorough research on Civil War Washington.  And yes, the Winder Building is included.  Some of these places are still standing, while others have been demolished, and the map simply indicates the former location.

The map is a must-have for Lincoln buffs, as well as Civil War enthusiasts with an interest in Washington City at the time of the conflict.  O'Brien tells me that the map is for sale at Ford's Theatre and the Lincoln Memorial.  But never fear.  You can order a copy here.

I'd also like to welcome John to the blogosphere.  He has started a blog, Lincoln in Washington, where he provides readers with even more detail on the various sites related to the 16th President in the nation's capital.  Despite the summer humidity, I can't wait to start hitting the streets of downtown DC armed with information from O'Brien's map and blog!

Civil War Photographs at the Corcoran Gallery

The other day I walked the short distance from my office to the Corcoran Gallery of Art in downtown DC to view the new exhibit, Shadows of History: Photographs of the Civil War from the Collection of Julia J. Norrell.  This temporary exhibit consists of a variety of photographs amassed by Norrell, a Washington lawyer and collector who only became interested in the war about six years ago.  Images by George Barnard, Matthew Brady, Alexander Gardner, Timothy H. O'Sullivan, and others line the walls of a small, intimate galley on the museum's second floor.

Those looking for well-known pictures will not be disappointed.  Among others images, visitors will find Gardner's Sharpshooter's Last Sleep from Gettysburg, a Barnard picture of Rebel works in front of Atlanta, and James Gibson's 1862 shot of the ruins of the Stone Bridge over Bull Run.  However, those looking for a deeper experience will walk away with a more nuanced and complex understanding of the war.  Although few in number, the images are presented in a thought-provoking manner.  The curator chose and arranged the photographs with obvious care.  We are asked to contemplate and reflect on the meaning behind what we see.

Ruins of Stone Bridge, Bull Run, James Gibson, 1862 (courtesy of Wikipedia).  Because photography is prohibited in the exhibit room, I was unable to take pictures and have chosen to illustrate this post with copies of the same photographs found on the Internet.

The exhibit places a particular emphasis on the participation of African-Americans in the conflict. There are photographs of United States Colored Troops, reminding visitors of the important military contribution that blacks made to the Union war effort and the fight for emancipation.  There are also photographs depicting other roles that African-Americans played.  One picture by D.B Woodbury, for instance, shows black laborers standing on a bridge across the Chickahominy River.  An 1862 image by Gardner entitled, What Do I Want, John Henry?, features a black servant waiting on a group of Union officers in Warrenton, Virginia.  The photograph reminds visitors that African-Americans still occupied a subservient  position in the eyes of most whites.  The war was being fought to secure their freedom, but it was only the start of a long road to equality.

"Ram," Baty A 2d U.S. Colrd Art'y, photographer unknown, 1865 (courtesy of Corcoran Gallery). This photograph is one of four showing the battery in various stages of drill. 

The exhibit is punctuated by a modern piece that dominates one entire wall.  Whitfield Lovell's Visitation: The Richmond Project: Battleground (2001) features a life-size portrait of a proud U.S.C.T. soldier, drawn in charcoal on wood planks.  (See here for a photograph.)  A cannonball sits at the base of the portrait.  A small, Victorian table off to the left side holds an antique copy of The Southern States of the American Union (1895).  The book is open to a couple tattered pages discussing the legitimacy of secession and the economic motives for emancipation. (If you are interested, here is a link to the book; the excerpt is at pp. 236-37.)  There is no denying the power of this contemporary installation.  The artist has dramatically presented us with a symbolic reminder of African-American participation in the war to defeat slave holding secessionists and secure freedom from bondage.

A display case in the center of the room contains a collection of cartes-de-visite.  Some of the small photographs shatter our typical notions of the war.  Placed between images of George McClellan and Jefferson Davis are photographs of a mixed race artilleryman and an Asian-American infantryman.  The visitor is left to wonder how these men were viewed by white soldiers, and how they reacted to the way white soldiers perceived them.  The diversity seen in these photographs raises questions about inclusiveness in American society that have taken many decades since the war to answer.

Some of these photographs are just plain stunning works of art.  George Barnard's scenes from the Atlanta Campaign represent artistry in black-and-white.  His image of Buen-Ventura in Savannah, Georgia depicts vestiges of the Old South, Spanish moss and all.  The photograph recalls the Southern society that Sherman's army tore asunder as it moved through Georgia.  Gardner captured scenes of destruction, like the burned out ruins of the Confederate armory building in Richmond.  Such photographs have documented and preserved for all generations the devastation that the Civil War visited on America.

Buen-Ventura, Savannah, Ga., George Barnard, c. 1864-65 (courtesy of Wikipedia)

Although off-topic for this blog, a neighboring exhibit features poignant Afghan war photographs by Tim Hetherington.  Visitors entering the room are transported from 19th century America to 21st century Afghanistan.  The photographs present a study in contrasts with the images of the Civil War hanging on the walls next door.  Yet we are also reminded that the more things change in war, the more they stay the same.

Residents of the DC area, and visitors to the nation's capital, should not miss the opportunity to view the Norrell collection at the Corcoran.  These photographs, from the famous to the obscure, have a lot to tell us about the nation's deadliest conflict.  We can thank the Corcoran, and Ms. Norrell, for putting on a truly remarkable visual history lesson.

Visiting the Exhibit

The Corcoran Gallery is located at 500 17th Street, N.W.  Shadows of History runs through May 20, 2012.  The museum charges a $10 admission fee.  For more information about the exhibit, and the museum in general, check out the Corcoran Gallery's website.  

In a future post, I will have something to say about the Corcoran family ties to the Civil War.  Stay tuned.